AMGAD v Cairns

AMGAD
v
CAIRNS
[2023] HCASL 81
S15/2023

The applicant seeks an extension of time for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Macfarlan and Kirk JJA) dismissing the applicant's summons seeking leave to appeal from the decision of the District Court of New South Wales (Robison DCJ) where the applicant's claim against the respondent for negligence was dismissed.
The proposed appeal has no prospects of success and raises no question of law nor of general principle. In those circumstances, it would be futile to grant the required extension of time. The application should be refused.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.J. Gageler J.M. Jagot

18 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in the matter, AMGAD, has applied for an extension of time for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which dismissed their summons seeking leave to appeal from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The District Court had dismissed AMGAD's claim against the respondent, Cairns, for negligence. The Court of Appeal, comprising Macfarlan and Kirk JJA, upheld the dismissal and refused AMGAD's request for leave to appeal. AMGAD now seeks an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court, which is the subject of the current application.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the proposed appeal had any prospects of success and if it raised any questions of law or general principle that would warrant an extension of time. The court considered the merits of the proposed appeal and found that it did not meet the necessary criteria for an extension of time. The court concluded that the appeal was futile, as it had no prospects of success and did not raise any significant legal questions.

The court's reasoning was based on the assessment that the proposed appeal did not have any prospects of success and did not raise any questions of law or general principle. The court emphasised that in such circumstances, it would be futile to grant the extension of time. The court was satisfied that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct and that there were no grounds for the High Court to intervene. The court found that the applicant's claim for negligence was properly dismissed by the District Court, and the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold that dismissal was justified.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time for special leave to appeal. The Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order to that effect, pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The application was refused, and the appeal process was concluded.

Continue reading AMGAD v Cairns

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established